KBD47 wrote:Right now Ubuntu breaks constantly with updates, check their forum at any hour any day of the week. My own experience is last week regular updates to my 12.04 install broke Unity.

Ubuntu breaking "constantly with updates" has not been my experience. Also, I've been keeping up with the updates in 12.04, but I noticed no breakage in Unity last week, this week, or so far at all since I installed 12.04 back in April of '04. You may say that I'm one of the lucky few; maybe you're one of the unlucky few, I don't know. Like I said earlier, I've been running Ubuntu's LTS versions for a long time now, since Dapper. I wouldn't be crazy enough to keep running it if it was constantly breaking. I like Ubuntu, but not enough to put myself through something like that.

viking777 wrote:The other simple strategy for using Linux is dual booting - and I don't mean with windows. If one distro breaks you use the other in the meantime or you use the other to fix the broken one.

This is a good approach -- I'm surprised sometimes that more people don't do it. Makes Linux a lot more pleasant, in my opinion, and also teaches you a lot. I was stuck with only one system when I was a Windows user, but dual- or multi-booting all-Linux is so easy, there's no reason to be tied down to one distro, seems to me.

KBD47 wrote:Right now Ubuntu breaks constantly with updates, check their forum at any hour any day of the week. My own experience is last week regular updates to my 12.04 install broke Unity.

Ubuntu breaking "constantly with updates" has not been my experience. Also, I've been keeping up with the updates in 12.04, but I noticed no breakage in Unity last week, this week, or so far at all since I installed 12.04 back in April of '04. You may say that I'm one of the lucky few; maybe you're one of the unlucky few, I don't know. Like I said earlier, I've been running Ubuntu's LTS versions for a long time now, since Dapper. I wouldn't be crazy enough to keep running it if it was constantly breaking. I like Ubuntu, but not enough to put myself through something like that.

MalSpa I would say Ubuntu 10.04 was nearly as solid as Debian Stable, in the past Ubuntu seemed more conservative with LTS. I ran 12.04 for months with no issues, but then it breaks with an update. But you can search the Ubuntu forum under "updates" and find plenty of breakage, here is one example updates on 12.04 and there are plenty of others:http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php? ... ght=update My point is not to bash Ubuntu, but to say more updates are likely to cause more issues. Some people like rolling releases, don't mind fixing things when they break, other people would just like a stable OS not in danger of breaking by frequent updates.

But it's not a rolling release - it's a 2 year release scheme with "rolling" in between for those interested. I haven't read anything to suggest that package updates in the intervals without further ado will be pushed to the previous LTS.

Thank you for this thread. That’s all I can say. You most definitely have made this forum into something special. You clearly know what you are doing, you’ve covered so many bases. Thanks!

bimsebasse wrote:Brahim, the LTS releases will still be there and they will be the proper releases, with names. The rolling in between is for testers, developers and people who want the newest.

Great But I still think that Linux Mint should dump this Ubuntu. After all Ubuntu is based on Debian and so is LMDE and that means that Mint can live without Ubuntu. And I would say that LMDE is ways better than Ubuntu, more stable and more practical. Ubuntu keeps venturing into uncharted waters and so becoming increasingly unsafe. It is heading heedlessly to the wall. It doesn't listen to what its users want, and instead it tells them what they should want. This paternalism left Ubuntu with an impractical "unity" and a shrinking community. Even if it keeps its roots in a Ubuntu soil, Linux Mint should keep a safe distance from it. Mint is more mature and more "democratic" than Ubuntu and I wonder why it should follow a Distro on the edge of the precipice

KBD47, I can only speak from my own experience. I run Ubuntu on a couple of machines here, but that's only two machines. In my experience, to say that "Ubuntu breaks constantly with updates" is quite an exaggeration. The statement does not reflect what I have seen here. YMMV, I guess.

Brahim, I'm actually surprised that Mint has stayed with an Ubuntu base for as long as it has. Ubuntu has always been about trying new and different things, and it has always been controversial to many people. One thing you can be sure of is that Canonical will always come out with something that will get people talking, and that they'll come out with something that will rub some people the wrong way, while always drawing attention to their project. It would seem that this would make it a difficult distro to base another distro on, but so far, Clem has stayed with Ubuntu. I figure he knows what's best for Linux Mint. Should be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Is Ubuntu a distro "on the edge of a precipice"? Hm. Not so sure about that one, but accurately predicting the future isn't one of my greatest strengths.

second (this time as in 2011) is one of the dev (a kernel maintainer now) that is pushing the idea in a 2 minutes talk in a G+ hangout (not exactly the formal announcement we could expect); furthermore it makes all the sense in the developers point of view (moreso the kernel maintainers): one (maybe 2) just set of kernels to maintain as opposed to the myriad ubuntu has to maintain now;

one of the explanations i see in several places is that with the phone and television market the point release schedule would make no sense: how so? iOS, android have point releases and that doesn't stop them from ruling the mobile market.

the big issue in this last point (but this is going off-topic ) is that fixed releases or rolling releases are a broken concept (and i use some sort of rolling release for several years: truly rolling, half-rolling, rolling with freezes you name it):- the real issue is the packaging model/update model: userland app shouldn't depend on system lib; it's an outdated concept and this indeed is keeping linux out of mainstream;- to give a cartoonist example: we shouldn't need to update the kernel/xorg to get the latest vlc/firefox;

bimsebasse wrote:But it's not a rolling release - it's a 2 year release scheme with "rolling" in between for those interested. I haven't read anything to suggest that package updates in the intervals without further ado will be pushed to the previous LTS.

bimsebasse, I've read several of the news articles about this and I don't think they are talking about changing the current 12.04, it's supposed to be supported for 5 years unless they break their word. It looks like, if they are going to do it, there will only be the two year LTS releases starting around 14.04 and those will be rolling with fresh updates and cutting edge software from what would have been the 6 mos releases being pushed into the LTS. maintaining just one Ubuntu much like Android does right now. I see nothing about both an LTS (beyond the 12.04) and a separate development release, unless I completely missed something in the several articles I read.

Just like Malspa and Exploder mentioned, i have been running either ubuntu itself or an ubuntu derivative (such as mint/zorin/etc) and currently running ubuntu 12.10 and can't recall EVER getting a breakage from doing an ubuntu update...I love this rolling release idea and hope they do implement it...i am sure it would be very carefully controlled for best stability...without the "under the gun" timeline the ubuntu developers have for each 6 month release, i think it will make it easier for them to provide a good and stable update experience, while providing improvements and newer software, and i love the idea of no longer getting that temptation to re-install every time the next edition arrives...